Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81415161718192021 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 305

Thread: California to ban internal combustion engine cars by 2035

  1. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Whitesell View Post
    Solar panels take as much energy to produce as they take to manufacture.
    But once you have the initial group of solar the energy from that group can be used to produce the next group of solar cells. Think of it another way - once you go 100% renewable, you can use that renewable energy to make more devices that produce renewable energy. It's a virtuous cycle.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  2. #257
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Whitesell View Post
    While there are no power plants using gasoline, there are power plants using natural gas, coal, and oil which are all GHG producers. Nuclear does not produce GHG but produces a lot of other junk we cannot dispose of. Solar panels take as much energy to produce as they take to manufacture. Hydro and wind are about it. But until 100% of electricity is produced by hydro and wind, the production of electricity produces GHG (or potentially worse). Also do not forget to compare GHG per mile not per "fill up" as there is not a vehicle with more miles per fill up on electric than on gasoline.
    Yes, the majority of power generated in the US generates GHGs unlike Canada where I live where over 80% of electricity is from non GHG sources but even if you charge an EV from the grid you still generate fewer GHG than an ICE vehicle and as the grid becomes greener it gets even better. Have a look at this video, he does a good job of explaining it and debunking some of the myths.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G67i_Z8ukD4

    https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmu...even%20higher.

  3. #258
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Whitesell View Post
    Nuclear does not produce GHG but produces a lot of other junk we cannot dispose of.
    Not the current MSR designs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Whitesell View Post
    Solar panels take as much energy to produce as they take to manufacture.
    Say what, now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Whitesell View Post
    But until 100% of electricity is produced by hydro and wind, the production of electricity produces GHG (or potentially worse). Also do not forget to compare GHG per mile not per "fill up" as there is not a vehicle with more miles per fill up on electric than on gasoline.
    You're all over the map there.
    What are you trying to get across?

  4. #259
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    5,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    Yes, the majority of power generated in the US generates GHGs unlike Canada where I live where over 80% of electricity is from non GHG sources but even if you charge an EV from the grid you still generate fewer GHG than an ICE vehicle and as the grid becomes greener it gets even better. Have a look at this video, he does a good job of explaining it and debunking some of the myths.
    A good share of Canada's electricity comes from hydroelectric. Canada is lucky to have the proper geography to produce a lot of hydroelectric power. It also helps that Canada has far fewer residents than the USA so electric demand is also far less.

    The USA long ago installed hydroelectric in the places it makes the most sense. We just don't have enough sites for hydroelectric to get a lot of our power from hydroelectric. A guy I know moved to Tennessee. He specialized in solar installation. Solar is very tiny there because electricity is cheap due to all the hydroelectric.
    Last edited by Brian Elfert; 11-06-2020 at 10:46 AM. Reason: spelling error

  5. #260
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    Yes, the majority of power generated in the US generates GHGs unlike Canada where I live where over 80% of electricity is from non GHG sources but even if you charge an EV from the grid you still generate fewer GHG than an ICE vehicle and as the grid becomes greener it gets even better. Have a look at this video, he does a good job of explaining it and debunking some of the myths.
    What I have been reading is based on per tank and per charge. These links to not change that. I would have to charge a Tesla 2 1/2 times to get the mileage from one tank of gasoline. The next nearest mileage per charge vehicle is half of Tesla, making it 5 charges per tank. Based on the numbers I have found, puts GHG per mile higher for EV.

  6. #261
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    But once you have the initial group of solar the energy from that group can be used to produce the next group of solar cells. Think of it another way - once you go 100% renewable, you can use that renewable energy to make more devices that produce renewable energy. It's a virtuous cycle.

    Mike
    If that was the case solar powered flashlights would work. Or put another way, where do you get the power to supply to anything other than making solar cells?

  7. #262
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Whitesell View Post
    What I have been reading is based on per tank and per charge. These links to not change that. I would have to charge a Tesla 2 1/2 times to get the mileage from one tank of gasoline. The next nearest mileage per charge vehicle is half of Tesla, making it 5 charges per tank. Based on the numbers I have found, puts GHG per mile higher for EV.
    I'm assuming you didn't look at the links I provided, here's a quote from the second link "One of the questions I’m most frequently asked about electric vehicles (EV) is: “Are they really a cleaner option?” While it’s obvious that a fully-electric vehicle eliminates tailpipe emissions, people often wonder about the global warming emissions from generating the electricity to charge an EV. The latest data affirms that driving on electricity produces significantly fewer emissions than using gasoline and is getting better over time.Electricity power plant emissions data for 2018 has just been released and we’ve crunched the latest numbers. Based on where EVs have been sold, driving the average EV produces global warming pollution equal to a gasoline vehicle that gets 88 miles per gallon (mpg) fuel economy. That’s significantly better than the most efficient gasoline car (58 mpg) and far cleaner than the average new gasoline car (31 mpg) or truck (21 mpg) sold in the US. And our estimate for EV emissions is almost 10 percent lower than our previous estimate two years ago. Now 94 percent of people in the US live where driving an EV produces less emissions than using a 50 mpg gasoline car."
    Mileage per charge is meaningless, what counts is GHG emissions per mile driven.
    Please provide a link to the site you say claims higher GHG per mile for electric vehicles vs ICE vehicles, I promise I will look at it. Note that the data quoted is two years old so there is no doubt that based current data it is even better.

  8. #263
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Whitesell View Post
    If that was the case solar powered flashlights would work. Or put another way, where do you get the power to supply to anything other than making solar cells?
    Lot's of solar powered devices work including flashlights, my wife has a solar powered watch, we have solar powered garden lights in our yard that have been working for almost a decade. Not sure I understand your question, yes some solar powered devices are built using power from fossil fuels but that doesn't mean they don't reduce consumption of fossil fuels over their lifetime. "In general, it has been estimated that around six months are needed for a solar panel to produce the energy required to clear the carbon dioxide emitted to produce it. However, this aspect depends mostly on the place of production." https://www.onlynaturalenergy.com/th...%20production.

  9. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Whitesell View Post
    If that was the case solar powered flashlights would work. Or put another way, where do you get the power to supply to anything other than making solar cells?
    I don't at all understand your comment. Let's say that you have a factory producing solar panels. At first they use power from the grid, but after they produce a certain number of solar cells, they put them on the factory roof and that provides sufficient power for the factory. They then use that power to continue to produce solar cells, shipping them to others who put them on their factory roofs to produce power to make the products they manufacture.

    I'm not sure what solar powered flashlights have to do with this but I actually have heard of such devices.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  10. #265
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    I don't at all understand your comment. I'm not sure what solar powered flashlights have to do with this but I actually have heard of such devices.

    Mike
    I don't think your dealing with the brightest light, there.

  11. #266
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Modesto, CA, USA
    Posts
    9,876
    Due to Japaneese law about a decade ago all calaculators made in japan had to be solar powered. Now most of even the cheapest dollar store calculators are solar powered. Japan passed that law to generate demand for solar cells so manufacturers would invest in newer technology to drive down the price. It has worked.
    California has passed a law that all new houses must have some small solar panels installed. Where I live it is hard for me to understand why solar hot water is not required. Even if it just enough to heat a tank of water when it is 100 outside. It was 100 every day for two months this summer.
    Bil lD

  12. #267
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Dufour View Post
    California has passed a law that all new houses must have some small solar panels installed. Where I live it is hard for me to understand why solar hot water is not required. Even if it just enough to heat a tank of water when it is 100 outside. It was 100 every day for two months this summer.
    Bil lD
    I wonder if it has to do with building codes and seismic activity? A column of water as high as a building would be heavy.

  13. #268
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    6,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Matthews View Post
    A column of water as high as a building would be heavy.
    Uh, you mean like the water pipes to upper-floor restrooms?
    Yoga class makes me feel like a total stud, mostly because I'm about as flexible as a 2x4.
    "Design"? Possibly. "Intelligent"? Sure doesn't look like it from this angle.
    We used to be hunter gatherers. Now we're shopper borrowers.
    The three most important words in the English language: "Front Towards Enemy".
    The world makes a lot more sense when you remember that Butthead was the smart one.
    You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too much ammo.

  14. #269
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee DeRaud View Post
    Uh, you mean like the water pipes to upper-floor restrooms?
    I mean code requirements for water tanks. A passive array on the roof will have most of its circulating loop at the highest point of the building.

    I was under the impression that requirements for solar water tanks would make permitting difficult.

    LA county has its own bylaws regarding this.
    SWAG here - it's cheaper to generate electric bill credits to offset domestic hot water than to run additional pipe through an existing structure than to set up a passive heating array.

    http://lacounty-ca.elaws.us/code/coo...8_apxs_s-9soco

    https://www.thisoldhouse.com/green-h...olar-hot-water


    https://up.codes/viewer/california/c...ater-heaters#5

  15. #270
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    3,970
    Some years ago, I investigated heating water using solar energy. There are problems with it that make it a lot more complicated than you would think. For one thing, a system with any efficiency at all will rapidly overheat and burst pipes. You have a thermostatically controlled recirculation system that continuously brings in cool water. For another thing, it isn't easy to store a useful amount of hot water for any length of time when there is no sunshine. It is analogous to the battery problem in a grid tie solar electrical system. In the end, you have to have a complex control system to make it work. There are all sorts of do-it-yourself plans out there on how to do it but very few people have decided it is worth the effort and expense.

    As for solar electrical power, it seems to me that if it were really practical, the government of California wouldn't have to create laws to force people to use it. I very recently did a cost/benefit analysis of installing solar power in my own new home. I was looking for a better way to invest some of my retirement savings. As it turned out, there is no way that a system of this sort will provide anything like a reasonable return compared to other investments. I was disappointed but not surprised.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •